1 comments Terence Moore Writes The Annual Column Where He Gleefully Lauds the One Game Wild Card Playoff Presented by Budweiser

Terence Moore hates new ideas and new things. Not shockingly, if that new idea comes from Major League Baseball, all of a sudden Terence will think it's a great idea. After all, Terence writes for MLB.com. Of course, they would never edit him or stop him writing something, even it were a column arguing against a new MLB rule. Sure, I believe that. So nearly every year Terence writes a column about how great the one game Wild Card playoff is. As everyone knows by now, I hate the one game Wild Card playoff. It's exciting, sure, but I think it should be a three game playoff and don't understand why one more game is enough after a 162 game season to decide which Wild Card team gets to appear in the NLDS/ALDS. Terence Moore disagrees because that's what he is paid to do.

If you're a baseball fan who lives for October more than any other month of the season, you're thinking like me.

I'm a baseball fan and I really doubt that I am thinking like Terence Moore. Terence is probably thinking about the Big Red Machine and how they would undoubtedly could still beat a team made up of 2015 MLB All-Stars.

There is just too much time between now and the start of the Wild Card Games presented by Budweiser next week.

Not that Terence is a shill for MLB.com or anything like that when he talks about the Wild Card Games presented by Budweiser. When discussing the Wild Card Games presented by Budweiser, Terence can write what he wants when he wants to write it. If Terence says he doesn't like the Wild Card Games presented by Budweiser, then he doesn't have to like the Wild Card Games presented by Budweiser. It's simply the opinion of Terence Moore that he writes in a column presented by MLB.com. 

We should enjoy the ride this weekend through the end of the regular season. Afterward, with one more day to go, we should unleash a sigh of relief as the Yankees make their first trip to the postseason in three years as the likely hosts of the Astros, Angels or Twins on Tuesday night in the American League Wild Card Game.

And the teams will battle in a one game playoff that will negate everything that team accomplished throughout the season. It will turn a 162 game season into an ace-off where the team with the best starting pitcher gets to go into the next round of the playoffs. Baseball may be a team game, but don't tell that to MLB or the Wild Card Game presented by Budweiser. 

As for the National League, the Cubs will probably play their winner-take-all game on the road against the Pirates, but that won't happen until Wednesday. What a tease, especially since you know the showdown between these two gifted teams is destined for instant-classic territory.

Was it an instant classic? I don't think it was. It was a great pitching performance by Jake Arrieta, but it wasn't an instant classic. Though I understand that Terence has to do everything in his power to make it seem like the Wild Card Games that are presented by Budweiser are nothing if not totally epic. 

You also know both Wild Card Games will feature intensity. Every inning, every pitch, every millisecond will be huge. The winners advance to the Division Series, and the losers are just done.

You know, I heard this could happen in a three game Wild Card series as well. Three games would test the depth and actual starting pitching strength of each team, which I know isn't something baseball is interested in after playing a 162 game schedule where a team's record is determined by the depth and starting pitching strength of each team, but it could be a pretty interesting three game Wild Card series presented by Miller Lite.

In a three game series, the winners still advance to the Division Series and the losers are still done. It's just a series that isn't determined by which team has the better ace.

So here's my humble assessment of baseball's current Wild Card system, which is entering its fourth season: It works just fine, thank you.

What? This is a shocking conclusion. Terence has written every year around the end of the baseball season, not by directive from MLB.com of course, that the Wild Card system works great and he still believes this is true this year? What a turn of events. 

There isn't a thing I would change.

And as a self-described "traditionalist" who didn't exactly love it when the first Wild Card was introduced, Terence saying there isn't a thing he would change about the one game Wild Card presented by Budweiser makes total sense. 

Still, many around the game and beyond want a best-of-three series to decide which of the two Wild Card teams in each league would reach the Division Series, where they would face the team with the best record in the regular season.

It would determine which team was better after a 162 game season. After all those games, I just don't like that a playoff spot comes down to one game. I feel like baseball is a team sport where the best teams have depth on their bench and in their starting pitching staff. I don't feel a one game Wild Card presented by Budweiser does justice in reflecting this. 

Cubs president of baseball operations Theo Epstein goes further than that. He told the Chicago Tribune in September that he proposed a best-of-three Wild Card series in which the opening games for each league would be part of a day-night doubleheader for the host team.

I can see that and I think it would be fun. I lean towards just having three games in three days at the home team's park, but a doubleheader would fun. The ironic part is that I bet the old-timers who bitch about there not being enough doubleheaders during the season would complain this is too far away from the traditional postseason format.

But extending the postseason would not help baseball end the World Series on a reasonable date each fall. This season, a potential Game 7 would occur on Nov. 4.

This is easily one of the worst reasons to not move the Wild Card Game presented by Budweiser to a a three game series. It's a horseshit excuse. The MLB season lasts from April to the very beginning of November over 162 games, but the potential of there being TWO MORE GAMES is just too unreasonable to be seriously considered. Here's a good idea. Move the season to 154 games. Problem solved. Again, the funny part about this is you would find traditionalists bitching about the move away from 162 games in order to fit in a new playoff format, even though the season would be moved back to 154 games. This is how many games were played back in the day when everything in baseball was perfect, the same age many traditionalist sportswriters harken back to.

I find it hilarious two more games, thereby being two more days of baseball, is just incredibly unreasonable. This from a league that has 162 games per year.

Translated: Just leave the current Wild Card setup alone. With a one-game decider in each league to start October, you have zero scheduling concerns.

Again, this is a remarkably weak excuse for keeping the one game Wild Card presented by Budweiser. After 162 games, scheduling concerns for two more games is the reason? Come on. 

Mostly, single Wild Card Games create drama like crazy.

Then make the Divisional Series, the Championship Series, and the World Series one game series as well. They can even be presented by another beer company. If drama is the intent, then make every series a one game series. So is Terence arguing the World Series isn't dramatic enough with a seven game series? Is the intent of the playoffs to create drama or find out who the best MLB team is? If you want drama, every series should be one game. If you want to know who the best team is, eliminate the second Wild Card presented by Chase and use the 162 games each team plays on the season to make this determination, or make the Wild Card series a three game series. 

Remember 2012 in Atlanta? The Cardinals slid past the Braves that night due to an infield fly call that the hometown fans thought resembled an "outfield fly."

Really? The first example of the drama created is an example that shows the incompetence of MLB's umpires to discern what is and is not an "infield fly"? If MLB thinks incompetent umpires are part of "the drama" then that explains why they allowed Eric Gregg to continue umping after the 1997 playoffs and why no one has done anything about Joe West's act. Drama created by incompetence doesn't seem like the best way to convince me to love the one game Wild Card presented by Budweiser.

There also was last year's AL Wild Card thriller in Kansas City. Somehow, the Royals overcame two late-game deficits, including one of 7-3 in the eighth. They shocked the A's in the bottom of the 12th, and that was four hours and 45 minutes after the first pitch.

And this game would have still have been played if the Wild Card was a three game series. It's just these same two teams would have had the chance to play AGAIN the next day to determine which team earns the right to make it to the ALDS. 

Just like that, a Royals team that hadn't reached the postseason in 29 years did more than advance to the Division Series. Kansas City won the pennant and the hearts of America, starting with its survival in that wildest of Wild Card Games.

And in a three game series the Royals still would have had the chance to make it to the Division Series and continue to win the hearts of America. 

"[The Wild Card setup is] fine the way it is now," Epstein also told the Chicago Tribune. "You can never come up with a scenario that's perfectly fair to everybody.

This is an absolutely true statement that is coming from a GM who has perhaps the best pitcher in the majors ready to go in the Wild Card Game presented by Budweiser with help from Chase in association with FanDuel provided by Goodyear. Epstein feels great with Arrieta starting the Wild Card game because he has been untouchable, so of course he thinks it's fine as it is now. There is no fair scenario, but I think there is a scenario that better reflects baseball is a team game.

Epstein's Cubs, by the way, are blessed with a wonderful "hand," and it is attached to the right arm of Jake Arrieta. Among other things, no pitcher in baseball history has looked more dominant than Arrieta during the second half of a season with an 11-1 record and a 0.80 ERA entering Friday. His overall numbers are also impressive (21-6, 1.82 ERA, 229 strikeouts through 223 innings).

Now consider this: In five starts this season against the Pirates, Arrieta is 3-1 with a 0.75 ERA, and he'll start next week's Wild Card Game.

And that's fantastic for the Cubs. Arrieta is awesome. It does prove my point that the Wild Card Game presented by Budweiser becomes an "ace-off" with the team that has the best pitcher having the best chance to win the game. I prefer baseball as a team game where a playoff series winner is determined by the strength of that team's starting pitching staff, not just the strength of one pitcher. 

Advantage: Cubs.

Yes, it is advantage Cubs. After 162 games, whichever team has the better starting pitcher wins the game. I think a better set up is possible. 

Or is it?

Yes, it was advantage to the Cubs.

The Pirates will counter with Gerrit Cole, and while he isn't Arrieta, he's fabulous enough at 19-8 with a 2.60 ERA. Not only that, Cole is a noted Cubs killer. In nine starts against the North Siders, he has lost just once with seven victories and a 2.88 ERA.

Gerrit Cole is a great pitcher. He was not as great as Jake Arrieta was. That's fine, the Cubs deserved to win that game, but I wish it were possible to make it a three game series. 

We haven't even mentioned the pending battle involving Chicago sluggers Kris Bryant and Anthony Rizzo against Pirates standouts Andrew McCutchen, Starling Marte and the rest. 

And these guys will still "battle" if there is a three game series. Why would fewer games of these four players "battling" be a bad thing? Terence using these four players as an example of the greatness of the Wild Card Game presented by Budweiser contradicts his point about the one game Wild Card being fine. This is because in a three game Wild Card series these four players would "battle" for possibly two more games. More fun! More drama! Why is this bad?

You also know Joe Maddon will keep things interesting on and off the field as the Cubs' manager and master psychologist.

Joe Maddon would also be present for all three games in a three game Wild Card series. Joe Maddon doesn't magically disappear into thin air if the Cubs have to play three games against the Pirates to earn the right to play in the NLDS. 

See what I mean by Wild Card drama?

See what I mean by nothing changing and the drama would still be there? Saying, "These players and this manager will make for a fun time and make things interesting" isn't an argument for the current Wild Card set up. It's an argument to watch the Wild Card series, no matter how long of a series it may be. How did Terence Moore get to become a writer who gets to pen columns that are intended to be somewhat persuasive? 

The same goes for the AL, where the Angels would put one of baseball's faces on national display in Mike Trout, and Trout has a noted slugging partner named Albert Pujols. If it's the Twins or the Astros instead of the Angels, we're talking about a bunch of talented youngsters to keep us entertained. 

These players would all still be participating in a three game series. I don't understand what the fuck Terence is trying to prove here. 

In addition, Houston has Dallas Keuchel, a wonderful starting pitcher who leads the AL in victories (19) and innings pitched (226).

Yes, he is wonderful and fans will get to see him pitching wonderfully against the Yankees. Then fans can see Scott Kazmir and/or Colin McHugh pitch wonderfully against the Yankees. Then I can rest easy knowing the Astros used more than one pitcher to prove they deserve to make the ALDS after a 3 game series and 162 game season. 

The Yankees are just the Yankees, and that's enough.

And yet, over the span of one game played after 162 other games were played it wasn't enough. 

So is one Wild Card Game.

Just like the one Wild Card Game presented by Budweiser is not enough. Shorten the season if needed (it's pretty freaking long anyway, even if it were 154 games) and then make the Wild Card series a three game series. I think it best represents the team game that baseball has shown itself to be. 

2 comments Frank Deford Equates ERA to the Ten Commandments

I have covered Frank Deford's bizarre screeds on this blog before. He is one of the best sportswriters of all-time and he used to be very good at writing about sports. "Used to be" is the key phrase here, because Frank has lost his fastball. In fact, he's lost his slider, his changeup, and is basically just lofting the ball underhand to the plate at this point. Whether it's blaming statistics for the lack of character coaches, railing against Title IX, discussing steroids and the Hall of Fame, or being sad that kids don't mess around with cars anymore, Frank's writing has gone past "bitter sportswriter who doesn't like how sports have evolved" to "angry grandparent yelling at the television while everyone in the room deals with the awkwardness of the situation." Sometimes I'm not even sure Frank knows why he's mad. He just knows kids don't like tinkering around in a garage with a car anymore and that means something for NASCAR or advanced statistics are confusing and baseball isn't the national sport anymore, so these two things must be related in some way.

Now Frank has taken aim (again) at advanced statistics and again blames them for ruining baseball. In this article is some bizarre taunting of Jerry Dipoto and a mention of the Ten Commandments. Because, why not? Throw Frank Deford's name on something and his legend will bring some pageviews.

Whereas numbers have never been a significant adjunct to the other performing arts,

(Deep sigh) I don't know if I would consider baseball to be a performing art or not. I've never considered sports to be anything more than just sports.

they've been stitched into the very essence of sport. Not just the score, but how fast, how far, how good.

It's hard to keep score without numbers and it's hard to evaluate athletes without using statistics of some sort. But be sure to use the "right" statistics or otherwise baseball will be ruined forever.

And, of course, no sport is so identified with numbers as is our American baseball.

And that's great, but Frank Deford encourages the "right" numbers to be used. Numbers that he understands, aren't new and don't make him feel like he has lost touch with the sport he loves so much. If something threatens Frank Deford's understanding of a sport, then it is obviously a bad thing for that sport. 

But stats — which is a fairly new shortcut word, about as old as the Mets and Astros are —

Holy fucking hell for all that is good in life. The Mets and Astros organizations are 50 and 53 years old respectively. They, and therefore the word "stats" isn't either, are not new. This is probably part of the problem with Frank Deford's perspective on sports. He considers something 50-53 years old to be "fairly new." It's not. It may feel new to Frank Deford, but the word "stats" isn't new to baseball simply because he's old enough to remember when the word began to be used as a shortcut for "statistic."

have proliferated recently, not only in other sports, notably basketball, but to deeper and deeper levels of baseball enlightenment.

Which is not a bad thing. Teams are finding new and different ways to evaluate baseball players for their performance on the field. It may be hard for Frank to understand advanced statistics, but this does not mean advanced statistics are bad or ruining the game.

Today, traditional statistics like batting or earned run averages — righteous measures that were accepted as the athletic equivalent of the Ten Commandments 

Are still used? Haven't in any way stopped by used by Sabermetricians? Are being seen as interesting statistics, but statistics that only tell part of the story and MLB teams want a better and fuller picture?

And no, these traditional statistics like batting or earned run averages are not the athletic equivalent of the Ten Commandments. After all, compared to the Ten Commandments, batting or earned run averages are fairly new words that are used. They have only be used in baseball since the invention of the game in the mid-1800's. So obviously the relevance of batting average and ERA should be in question since they are fairly new.

— are made to seem quaint and primitive.

See, no. These numbers aren't made to seem quaint and primitive, but are made to be numbers that simply don't tell the whole story. There is this defensive attitude from old-school writers like Frank Deford about the use of advanced statistics. They want to make it seem like all older statistics are being wiped off the map entirely, when that isn't true. It's simply that these old statistics like batting or earned run average just don't tell the whole story. Why is more information a bad thing?

Baseball even has its own specific brand of analytics, which is known as sabermetrics.

(Bengoodfella clutches his pearls, turns off the "Diagnosis: Murder" re-run he was watching and then falls down in his sitting chair)

Baseball statistics were further glorified by Michael Lewis in his book Moneyball and then on film by the heartthrob Brad Pitt.

"Further glorified" by Michael Lewis. I can always tell when I am reading an article by an anti-advanced statistics writer, because there will be a mention of "Moneyball" and then a mention of the movie "Moneyball." Most of those who don't like advanced statistics base most of their knowledge of advanced statistics on the book and movie "Moneyball," even if they have never actually read the book or seen the movie. Sportswriters like Deford have a knowledge of advanced statistics and Sabermetrics that extend to, and not past, knowledge of the book and movie "Moneyball" existing.

The same people who have no interest in further knowledge past ERA and batting average also have no interest in further knowledge of Sabermetrics that extends past "Moneyball." So it makes sense on that level. It's like me saying I don't like organized religion because of the movie "The Exorcist."

Imagine on-base percentage being a thing of heartthrob.

Like much in the same way I can imagine batting average and viewing a player through the eyes of a scout being a thing of a tough guy like Clint Eastwood in the movie "The Trouble with the Curve"? Ah yes, a movie that also features Justin Timberlake as a baseball scout that is also fairly anti-advanced statistics. Being self-aware is not a thing of Frank Deford.

Moneyball posited the fancy that revolutionary statistical magic had sprung forth from the brain of the Oakland General Manager Billy Beane, like Athena emerging full-blown from Zeus' head.

Frank Deford allows his lack of knowledge freak flag fly. If Frank HAD read "Moneyball" then he would know Billy Beane gives Bill James credit for inspiring much of the "statistical magic" that came forth from him. I would really doubt Frank Deford has read "Moneyball" because that would require effort and he's not about to put effort into anything "fairly new" like stats.

Deford's lack of knowledge about advanced statistics is one of the many reasons I am glad modern sportswriting is the way it currently is. Writers like Murray Chass and Frank Deford could once posit an assumption on their readers in a column and not hear any negative feedback. They may get a few letters, but would shrug those off as just people who don't understand. Who needs those crazies? The fact people were reading what they wrote and they kept getting a paycheck for what they wrote obviously meant they were writing journalistic magic that sprung forth from their pen/typewriter. In the past, Deford could write something like this about "Moneyball" and not be called on it's fallacy. Now, not so much, and I think Deford (and others) resent this. They want to be able to make their point in the way they want to make their point, without being contradicted or their incorrect assumptions being pointed out.

In fact, other resourceful innovators had found original uses for stats all through diamond history.

Which "Moneyball," the book, acknowledges. Criticizing advanced statistics based on the movie "Moneyball" would be like criticizing General Eisenhower's war tactics during World War II based on what was seen in a certain movie. Hollywood makes shit up and leaves things out. It's entertainment, not fact.

But now there is an absolute sabermetric explosion.

There was a Sabermetric explosion a decade ago. Way to keep up.

Every team has employed nerds, 

I still love how the term "nerds" is used in this text. It's a form of journalistic bullying that I find to be juvenile and hilarious. It's an insult straight out of high school or middle school, but apparently a perfectly acceptable form of criticism when coming from a professional writer.

"Oh, you want to learn more about statistics and try to earn a living being smart? NERD! Being stupid and ignorant is cool. Now let me give you a swirlie, loser."

who are presumably tucked away in secret offices, with computers and green eyeshades, emerging only to hand over new numerical strategies.

This presumption based entirely on having absolutely no fucking clue what these people actually do, how they come by the information they come by and certainly no urge to try and gain a wider knowledge base on this topic. Obviously these are all positive attributes any company should want in an employee.

Any assumption made about what these "nerds" are doing is an assumption based on ignorance and not based on fact. Why is Frank Deford not afraid of presuming incorrectly? Only in writing about advanced statistics in baseball is an incorrect presumption and lack of knowledge considered to be a badge of honor that someone would proudly wear.

(Frank Deford) "I know nothing about the topic I'm discussing in this column and couldn't be prouder of this fact!"

(Editor) "You are getting a raise my good man. I don't know how the employee evaluation and compensation system works at our company and I don't care. I don't know anything about budgets or whether giving you a raise will result in layoffs. Who cares? You get a raise!"

(Frank Deford) "The fact you know nothing and stick to your presumptions about how this employee evaluation and compensation system should work tells me you are a fine man and very much stick to old-school principles. This is a credit to you that you don't seek out more information prior to giving me a raise."

(Editor) "I agree. In fact, I haven't read your columns in over a year. I know nothing but that you are an older writer and that must mean you are still good at what you do and no further information should be required for me to learn. In fact, I will seek no more information for fear of learning something that contradicts what I currently know."

This has resulted not only in the outward and visible sign of infielders being shifted all around the diamond like linebackers in football, but even in covert skulduggery, industrial espionage and power politics.

It's obviously the fault of those who use advanced statistics that the Cardinals hacked into the Astros' computers. If it weren't for advanced statistics and computers then there would be no computers for the Cardinals to hack into. Sabermetricians are eventually going to lead to the downfall of society as a whole. Obviously.

What kind of hack-ass shitty writer somehow manages to talk about advanced statistics and then write, "This has resulted in...covert skulduggery, industrial espionage...," as if in some way advanced statistics and not the actions of human beings (the human factor that the anti-stats crowd loves so much!) are the reason for the Cardinals hacking into the Astros' computers?

Last week the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim general manager up and quit in midseason — something that statistically just doesn't happen — 

Yes, because most of the time a General Manager is fired before resigning. I do like the "statistically happen" comment though, as if because Dipoto used advanced statistics he should be able to predict the future and prevent his own resignation.

because, it seems, his manager wouldn't apply enough of the new metrics that his computer minions were churning out.

The tension between Scioscia and Dipoto went slightly deeper than just that, but the basis of it was a different belief in how to deal with information and apply it on the field. This was an arranged marriage between Dipoto and Scioscia anyway, and statistically arranged marriages between a GM and a manager he didn't hire don't work out too well in the long-term. And simply because Scioscia won this power struggle doesn't mean his point of view about new metrics is the correct point of view. That's important to know. Scioscia won the power struggle because Arte Moreno prefers him to Dipoto.

But wait! Worse than this front-office insurrection, the federal government itself may well bring charges against one or more members of the St. Louis Cardinals staff, nabbed for hacking into the secret files of the Houston Astros. Hacking! Baseball! Like Russians and Chinese. Oh my.

And this has what to do with advanced statistics in any way? Advanced statistics or numbers had no impact on the Cardinals choosing to hack the Astros computer. The Cardinals may have been after information about trades and what the Astros thought about certain players, but if advanced statistics or WAR (the favorite advanced statistic for the anti-stats crowd to pick on because it's the easiest to spell) didn't exist then the Cardinals still would have hacked the Astros' files.

Why must Frank Deford forget about the human element in all of this? These are humans making decisions, not computers or robots who made the decision for the Cardinals. Fans of old-school statistics should never forget the human element of decision-making!

It makes deflating a few footballs look like child's play,

The Cardinals hacking the Astros also has as much to do with advanced statistics in baseball as deflating footballs does.

and it makes baseball the darkest statistical art, even more the place for sexy metrics.

Deford is working under the uninformed assumption that the use of advanced statistics is a dark art that takes place secretly in a basement or somewhere out of the view of the sun and prying eyes. Every MLB team has a person or two (perhaps even an entire department) who deal with statistics and how to use these statistics in the process of evaluating baseball players and improving a team's performance. It shows just how uninformed Deford is that he doesn't know the Sabermeteric explosion is over. Advanced stats are now a part of the game, but because he chooses to ignore those things he doesn't like and prefers to base his opinion on limited knowledge, he thinks advanced metrics are a "dark" part of baseball.

Deford was great at one time, but statistically, sportswriters tend to slow down over time. I think he's past that point now.

7 comments MMQB Review: Peter King Struggles With the Idea Not Everyone Thinks Russell Wilson is Comparable to Aaron Rodgers

Peter King wrote about how Bill Arnsbarger was the father of the Zone Blitz in last week's MMQB, even though he had previously said Dick LeBeau was the father of the Zone Blitz. You know, either way. He also extolled the virtues of running in Central Park (again) and previewed the storylines for the upcoming NFL season, as well did a Bleacher Report-ish list of one player on every NFL team that was "feeling the heat" in training camp. Most of them were rookies or quarterbacks, naturally. That's what made it Bleacher Report-ish. This week, Peter talks about Adrian Peterson's return, talks about Russell Wilson's contract (again), and gets a few last shots in at Josh Freeman. Boy, Peter is really mad that Freeman hurt Peter's friend, Greg Schiano, isn't he? Not that Peter would ever play favorites of course. He's offended I would even believe this could be true.

It was a broiler Sunday in the upper Midwest, 85 with a scorching sun and St. Louis-like humidity that made fans and media at the Vikings’ first day of training camp look for any sliver of shade they could find. 

Oh, 85 degrees with a scorching sun and humidity. How ever will they survive such treacherous conditions? Try it being 94 degrees with a scorching sun and humidity for a couple straight weeks and then get back to me.

On one such occasion, during a break in practice, Adrian Peterson, back after a season in self-imposed purgatory, took a water bottle from a camp aide. Before taking a drink himself, he held up the bottle to undrafted Boise State rookie fullback Blake Renaud. Renaud nodded, and Peterson squirted water in Renaud’s mouth for two or three seconds. Then Peterson took some water himself. Just a bit of common football courtesy his teammates have gotten used to.

(Adrian Peterson) "I need some help to rebuild my image, guys."

(Ben Dogra) "I know, we are working on it. I have an idea. When Peter King comes to the Vikings training camp this year, I will just ask him to pay special attention to you and perhaps write a story about what a great guy you are."

(Adrian Peterson) "That's ridiculous. No sportswriter would come up and spend time during training camp like this in order to help me rehab my image when he has plenty of other things to do."

(Ben Dogra is on the phone) "Yeah, just drive right up...Adrian, check it out! (points towards the entrance to the Vikings facility and the MMQB bus is pulling in)"

(Peter King hops out carrying two coffee drinks in his hands with his notebook tucked in the fanny pack he is wearing): "ADRIAN! MY MAN! Ben here says you are a good person now and no one else will listen to what a good teammate you are? That's amazing how I have found my fellow sportswriters won't report on information like this. It happens to me all the time, so I get called to report on how you are a great teammate now, just like I got called to point out Marvin Demoff knows exactly how to structure a contract so an NFL team could hand Alex Mack an offer sheet which the Browns wouldn't match. Good luck for me again that this story just falls in my lap! Can I just follow you around and note your good deeds?"

(Ben Dogra winks at Adrian Peterson as he and Peter King walk away)

“A great teammate,” quarterback Teddy Bridgewater said of Peterson. “I can tell you, the whole locker room’s glad to have him back.”

Which Bridgewater knows from his vast experience of one year in the Vikings locker room and never having played with Adrian Peterson before.

Pretty good player too. It is silly to judge anything of a veteran football player in an unpadded July practice … except athleticism. And in the first training-camp practice of his thirties (he turned 30 on March 21), Peterson made one move that showed the Vikings the athleticism they were missing at the position for the final 15 games of last season.

If you remember, Peter also encouraged Mike Zimmer and the Vikings to give Peterson incentive to show up to training camp and make peace a few months ago. 

Backup quarterback Mike Kafka tossed an in-stride 30-yard touchdown to Peterson. Easy as pie. Followed by a smile. We’ve seen both—the juking move leaving a defender behind, and the smile—before.

Imagine what Peter would write on Peterson's behalf if the Vikings had not reworked his deal. Peter would be writing about all the other NFL teams that would be interested in a running back of Peterson's caliber and exactly how another NFL team could acquire Peterson, but only if they give Peterson a contract extension of course.

“I don’t see the end,” a relaxed Peterson said Sunday. “Straight up and honest with you, I feel like, and I don’t know if I’ll do this, because I feel like once my mind tells me, You know what—I’m not loving this game anymore, I’ll walk away whenever that time is. But I honestly feel I can play this game until I am 36 or 37 years old. And at a high level.”

BREAKING: A professional athlete feels like he can continue to perform at a higher level and has confidence in his abilities.

“I’m just glad we got to this day,” GM Rick Spielman said Sunday morning, as the Vikings came out for their first walk-through practice of the summer. “It puts an end to the saga, and we’re all so glad he’s here.”

Yes, it's wonderful to have one of the best running backs in the NFL returning, even though the running game doesn't matter anymore in the NFL. Right?

Only one thing Peterson said in an interview after the morning walk-through here surprised me. That was this: He was sure he’d never be traded all along.

Oh, I guess that's probably the best way to play this situation from Peterson's point of view. He was holding out and the rumors were just rumors. I'm not going to believe it, but I see why Peterson would say it.

“The reality, and just to be straightforward with you … I knew I really wasn’t going anywhere,” Peterson said. “I am the type of person that likes to look at things from different views, so I put myself in the Vikings situation—the owners, the head coach. We’re not gonna let you go.

Of course, Peter never says he WANTED to stay in Minnesota, just that he knew he wouldn't leave.

I revert back to the Percy Harvin situation. Me, if I was the owner of the Vikings, there’s no way I would have let him go. But unfortunately for us, he ended up leaving—

I think Peterson means "fortunately" for the Vikings, Harvin ended up leaving. I'm sure Peter transcribed this quote incorrectly, because knowing what the Seahawks and Jets know about Harvin I can't imagine that Peterson really thinks at this point that it hurt the team to not still have Harvin around.

So no bitter aftertaste about staying?

“No,” he said. “I like being here. “ … I’m in a good place. I have a beautiful wife and a beautiful family … I am really happy to be back with the Minnesota Vikings and to really get this season going.”

Of course Peterson wanted out. That's clear, but he's just happy to be back in the NFL at this point.

One of the reasons he’s here is the approach GM Rick Spielman and coach Mike Zimmer took with the situation. They never opened the door an inch for Peterson to ever give him the thought that he might not play in Minnesota.

Because the Vikings weren't going to get the value they wanted back when trading a premier running back, especially a premier running back with such a large contract. It just wasn't happening, so the Vikings knew that even if they found a team to take Peterson, there would never be a team who would give them the value they wanted back for Peterson.

I made this point to Zimmer—even if the Vikings were able to get a low first-round pick for Peterson (dubious, given what he was owed on the last three years of his contract), how could they have gotten close to equal value for him?

Which is why the idea Peterson would be going anywhere, an idea that Peter didn't believe because he admits he thought Peterson had played his last game for the Vikings, was so ridiculous. The Vikings would never find a team willing to take Peterson's contract and give them a high draft pick for him.

Say the Vikings wanted a running back.

The Vikings wanted a running back.

“He’s a top 10 player in this league,” said offensive coordinator Norv Turner. “He will win games for us. He’ll be huge for us.”

Sort of like how Peterson was huge for the Vikings when he carried a Christian Ponder-led Vikings team to the playoffs. Except now, the Vikings have a real quarterback.

It struck me talking to people around the Vikings Sunday that Turner is a big reason why Peterson seems happy he’s here. Going back to his Emmitt Smith days as offensive coordinator in Dallas, Turner has always fed his running backs aggressively. “He’s proven in what he does,” Peterson said. “I was super excited about getting into his offense last year and now I finally get that opportunity. 

Not excited enough to not hold out of camp, of course. Peterson was excited to where if he HAD to play for the Vikings then he'd be okay with Turner as his offensive coordinator.

Peterson did not want to discuss the events that forced him to sit a season. So no talk from him about the charges of child endangerment stemming from whipping his son.

And really, why should Peter push the issue and find out information that most people would want to know, as opposed to simply providing boring camp quotes like, "I feel great, I'm happy to be here, and I'm more excited for this year than I have been"? Asking questions his readers may want an answer to is not worth losing friends over.

I would have liked to hear his version of events, and how it changed him, or if it did. I did ask if he learned any lesson from the last year of his life.

Back off, Peter, Peterson may ask to shake your hand and cause it hurt if you keep hitting him with these type of questions.

“The most important thing I’ve learned—I knew this but this was a clear indication to realize it and stick by it—was to put your trust in God and not in man,” Peterson said. “Man will turn his back on you quick and God won’t, no matter what the situation is.”

This is also a lesson that Peterson's son learned as well. Don't trust a man, because he will beat the everliving shit out of you, so better put your faith in God...or what God you know as a child who isn't in grade school yet.

“The saying that age is just a number is so true,” he said. “It's all about how you take care of your body and how you view your age.

That's a good point. What I think Peterson means is that he viewed his son as a grown adult who also plays in the NFL, so the fact his son was only four years old should have no bearing. You step up and don't listen, you gonna get beaten like you are an old man. Better go find that God of yours, because he won't turn his back on you like daddy will.

Even if Peterson has two great years left and only two, that takes the Vikings through what should be a contending season this year and then a Super Bowl-hosting season with a new stadium next year. The franchise needs a billboard, and he’s it. The crowd was supportive of Peterson Sunday. He was cheered and asked for his autograph and made to feel welcome.

Fans tend to be quite forgiving. We are a kind bunch.

As one fan said while I walked in Mankato after lunch: “We all want him to have a great year, but there’s a lot of people uncomfortable with the whole story. I think they’ll come around. It might take a while. But he’s always been so good to the fans I think he’ll be loved again.”

(Ben Dogra smiles as the interview ends. Peterson didn't have to answer any tough questions he didn't want to answer, was able to throw a few "God" mentions in there, and reinforced how beloved he is among fans and teammates)

A few points to be made on the Russell Wilson non-deal, as Wilson has imposed a deadline of later this week to get a contract extension done or he says he’ll play
out the final year of his rookie contract at $1.5 million:

(And no, I don't know why Peter had the sudden font change, so I will use the same font just for fun)

YES! I WANT TO TALK ABOUT RUSSELL WILSON'S CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS! HOW COME NO ONE, ABSENT EVERYONE IN THE NFL COMMUNITY AND WILSON EVERY SINGLE TIME A MICROPHONE IS THRUST IN HIS FACE, HAS TALKED ABOUT THESE CONTRACT NEGOTATIONS? 
    
It’s all well and good to ask a player to take less for the good of the team, but only one big star in recent years has done that. Tom Brady has, a couple of times. Every other player deserving of huge compensation—J.J. Watt, Peyton Manning (until being forced to take less this year), Ndamukong Suh, Aaron Rodgers, Drew Brees, you name ’em—has maximized his contract and taken the most he could get. Just because Wilson is an unabashed and grateful Seahawk and says, “Go Hawks” at the end of interviews doesn’t mean he should take less than the market will bear.

Two things:

1. Wilson should absolutely get as much money as he can get. I think the issue isn't that Wilson should take less money than he is worth, but there is a perception that Wilson isn't Manning, Brees, Rodgers, Suh, Watt or Tom Brady. He's not an elite player at his position, that's the perception.

2. Russell Wilson and his agent have been very, very loud about these negotiations, as well as have played a ridiculously stupid game of "I may go play baseball instead, so try to stop me by throwing money at me." So Wilson hasn't quite sat around waiting for a contract extension. He and his agent have taken this quest to the public, which isn't something any of these other players that Peter listed did, so there will naturally be more scrutiny since it's being drawn-out publicly over a long period of time. Other NFL quarterbacks get contract extensions outside of the press, while Wilson and his agent have essentially lobbied for one and not shied away from talking about how they want an extension done.

If Peter can't understand these two points I made and how that makes Wilson different from these other players he listed, then he won't ever understand.

What is the market for Wilson? People still seem to have trouble crediting Wilson for becoming one of the best quarterbacks in football. It’s either, “The defense wins games in Seattle,” or “He’d be nothing without Marshawn Lynch,” or “He’s still too short to be a great player.” Or all of those. (We never seem to hear, “His best receiver is Doug Baldwin.”)

Probably because "we" seem to keep getting told the Seahawks receivers are better than they are given credit for, which "we" seem to believe is probably true. So there is no need to pretend Doug Baldwin sucks when it fits the point Peter wants to prove.

Judging the market for any player is always problematic. Complicating this process is the fact that Mark Rodgers, who represents Wilson, works mostly with baseball players and is an unabashed fan of unrestricted free agency.

It's not the same thing. I hope Rodgers doesn't learn this the hard way, though I honestly have no idea what "the hard way" would be at this point.

In other words, Wilson will risk injury in the next two years—the Seahawks will likely apply the franchise tag to Wilson for 2016, at approximately $25 million—if there’s not a contract the two men deem market-worthy. And on the injury risk: When’s the last time a good or better-than-good quarterback in his prime suffered an injury so severe he couldn’t return from it?

Dante Culpepper? Troy Aikman retired at age 34 due to back issues. Plus, Russell Wilson plays a different style than the traditional quarterback used to play, so he could end up being more susceptible to hits in and out and out of the pocket. I just don't think, "Hey, quarterbacks never get hurt by an injury so badly it ruins his career. What could go wrong?" is the best attitude to have, especially now that the NFL is tracking concussions more stringently than ever and defensive players are faster and stronger than ever.

Surgeons are good these days. They repair players. I wouldn’t let the threat of injury drive me to sign a contract I didn’t think was fair.

This is, of course, ignoring the impact Wilson's ability to scramble has on his success by putting pressure on the defense and the increased threat of injury to any NFL player running with the football as large men are chasing him.

Is five years at $22 million per so drastically out of whack? That’s the current champeen of NFL contracts. Aaron Rodgers signed it two-and-a-quarter years ago with the Packers. The salary cap when he signed, in 2013, was $123 million. Now it’s $143.8 million. Rodgers’ Packer contract in 2013 was, on average, taking up 17.9 percent of the Green Bay salary cap. An equivalent contract today, when the cap has risen to $143.3 million, would be $25.6 million annually. So paying Wilson $22 million a year would seem to me a pretty fair deal. 

But Peter, you ol' son of a bitch, you are assuming that Wilson is comparable to Aaron Rodgers. This is not a belief that everyone holds, so comparing Wilson to Rodgers isn't going to prove your point. No, for a franchise quarterback on-par with Aaron Rodgers, $22 million isn't out of whack. For a quarterback who some believe is simply a product of a great defense and running back, then $22 million per year would be drastically out of whack.

Peter consistently is making the assumption that Russell Wilson is on the same level as other elite quarterbacks. That's part of the issue though, isn't it?

Even $23 million per would arguably be right—and if the Seahawks choose to wait till 2016, there’s no way the price is going down by then. What if the Giants pay Eli Manning $23 million per?

I don't know. What if? Why is Peter using this hypothetical, as if Eli Manning being paid $23 million per year wouldn't draw criticism too? 

Let’s say the two sides agree on Rodgers money: five years, $110 million, with guaranteed money being paid this year but the 2015 salary staying on the books for cap reasons. (Not likely, but possible.)

Check out how Wilson’s total compensation in his first nine seasons would compare to a player who hasn’t won as much but who was rewarded this offseason, with no hue and cry about the deal not being worth it.

Apparently Peter has resorted to outright lying in order to prove his point? "No hue and cry"? None? Perhaps Peter should do an Internet search for Newton and his new contract. Perhaps see some of the reaction on Twitter to that contract and then decide. Oh, and Newton made no cry or hue about the contract possibly not getting done over and over in interviews either, but I guess that doesn't matter much in this discussion.

Cam Newton, through end of current deal: Nine years, $125.8 million total, $13.98 million average.

Wilson, through end of projected deal: Nine years, $113.0 million total, $12.55 million average.

What this comparison sort of neglects is that Newton was already starting with a higher contract amount, so Wilson would be getting more money than Newton if he got "Rodgers money." Newton started his NFL career getting paid like the #1 overall pick while Wilson is getting paid like a 3rd round pick. That factors into the final totals that Peter has projected in this comparison, while not noting they were starting from two different places based solely on draft position. But hey, Peter isn't supposed to be good with numbers and just don't question it please.

It doesn’t seem a stretch to me to pay Rodgers money to Wilson, no matter what you think of the two men as players.

Son of a motherfucking son of a bitch's son of a bitch. YES, YES, YES, it totally matters what you think of the two men as players. Rodgers and Wilson are compensated based on (SAY IT WITH ME), what their two teams think of them as players. That is their value and they are paid based on this perceived value to their current team. So yes, if the Seahawks don't think Wilson is as good as Rodgers then they are going to be less inclined to pay Wilson like the Packers paid Rodgers.

Writing in the New York Times, Ken Belson quoted the daughter of the late linebacker, Sydney Seau, as saying she was disappointed she wouldn’t be able to give the speech he would have wanted to give at his Hall of Fame induction Aug. 9. Immediately protests came up on social media and the larger media (not sure the “larger media” is actually larger than social anymore, really), calling for Sydney to be able to give the acceptance speech. One problem: In 2010, the Pro Football Hall of Fame changed its policy for inductees who have died. They would have a five-to-six-minute introduction featuring the person designated by the family to introduce the honoree. Then no acceptance speech. Then the unveiling of the Hall of Fame bust by family members. Then on to the next inductee. (Fairness in reporting: I am one of the 46 selectors for the Hall of Fame.)

Fairness in fairness: This policy is silly and I don't see the issue with a family member giving a short acceptance speech on behalf of the deceased. I do know one of the big complaints about the Hall of Fame induction ceremony is it becomes too long, as if an athlete's lifetime hard work and talent being recognized should be under a time limit. So yes, I expect Peter to take the Hall of Fame's side on this. He's a company man through and through, no matter which company he is representing at that present time.

So, why the change? The induction ceremonies had become quite long and tedious.

First off, this is a huge honor that very few athletes ever achieve. It's hard for me to feel bad about the "long and tedious" part of the ceremony knowing that. Second, put a time limit on the speeches. Why is that hard to do? Rather than eliminate a speech entirely, just put a time limit on the speech and enforce it.

In 2009, when the late Derrick Thomas’ designated speaker, Carl Peterson, rolled on for 26 minutes in his pinch-hitting acceptance speech (and Chris Berman went long in introducing Ralph Wilson that year too) both the Hall and network officials thought the speeches had to be reined in.

Further proving that Chris Berman can ruin every fucking thing in this world when he puts his mind to it.

But the reason for this decision is brevity, not a problem with what would be said by Sydney Seau.

I understand the brevity issue, but I think a time limit would be a better idea. Of course, I'm talking about the Pro Football Hall of Fame, which keeps the balloting a secret and only allows a small amount of players to be inducted no matter how worthy the incoming class might be. Let's blame Chris Berman for Junior Seau's family not being allowed to give a short speech.

Tweetups. We will have one in Wisconsin, probably on Aug. 7. Leaning toward Milwaukee late on that Friday afternoon, but we’ll let you know as soon as we firm up details. I hope to have another one sometime on this tour. Stay tuned, and follow my Twitter feed (@SI_PeterKing) for details. Tweetups, for those unfamiliar, are pretty simple affairs. I show up somewhere—a bar, coffee shop, ballgame, training camp—and you come by and we talk for 60 or 80 minutes. (And, of course, you buy me a beer or a latte.)

This is clearly one of those "jokes" that isn't really a joke. Peter's kidding, unless you're going to do it of course. In which case, let him pick out which beer he hasn't had lately. It would probably be cheaper to buy Peter an entire case of beer rather than a latte, given how many shots of he puts in his coffee-flavored water.

I have loved the look of The MMQB since we were born two years and one week ago. A giant photo or photo illustration on the home page, and a giant photo again on the story pages. I can’t speak ill of the concept, because I’ve loved it. Still do.

But we decided to make a change. Mostly, I think, because I wanted us to be more diverse, particularly on our home page. Under the old system, we’d rotate four major stories on a timer. If you came to our site, you’d see one story; if you didn’t want to read, say, about Philip Rivers and the Chargers, you might hit another football site before the next story rotated in.

Basically, looking at the analytics for the site they found that people would land on the site and often leave quickly without clicking on an article or would click on one article and then not go back to the main THE MMQB home page. That's my best guess.

By the way, the time people spend on this site the last time I checked (2010, probably) is like 0.056 seconds. I'm pretty happy with that, because it means for a half-of a millisecond they think about not immediately leaving the page. It's those fancy and catchy titles I use for the blog posts which contributes to my great success, I know.

We’ll be nimbler, able to update pages more often. Soon, you’ll find better photo/gallery pages and slideshows, and more prominent places for our videos.

Bleacher Report, consider yourself being competed against.

“Who else do they have? Tell me, who else do they have?”

—A slightly bitter Junior Galette, former Saints pass-rusher, to the New Orleans Times Picayune, after New Orleans released him on Friday, dumping an incredible $17.6 million in salary-cap dead money on the team’s already bloated cap in 2015 and 2016

The Saints just gave Cam Jordan five years and $55 million, so I think they will be hoping that they have him to help out with the pass rush.

Pretty strong talk for a guy with 30% of the Saints’ sacks over the past two years. That’s significant. And he’s the best pass-rusher the Saints had. But Cam Jordan, Anthony Spencer and a couple of rookies with pass-rush pedigree will soften—not negate—the blow.

But hey, with Rob Ryan calling the shots on defense, what could go wrong?

“If I could counsel Russell, if he’d listen to me … he likes the city, he likes the teammates, he loves the system he’s in, it’s just all working for him … to hold out or not sign something to make an extra million bucks a year—now to a normal person that’s a lot of money, a really lot of money. But to a professional athlete, you know, and this is not his last contract, he’s going to sign another one in four years. So I think it’s a huge mistake. I just don’t understand it. If he plays this season for a million and a half, then I think it’s a huge mistake. I really do.”

—Former Seahawks coach Mike Holmgren, to radio host Mitch Levy on “Mitch in the Morning” on Sports Radio 950 KJR, on the contract impasse between Russell Wilson and Seattle team executives. If he does not agree to a new contract, Wilson is due to make $1.5 million in this, the final year of his four-year rookie deal.

And of course remember that Mike Holmgren is ex-management and is an ex-coach as well, so his feeling will always lie with what helps that side of the NFL business out the most. I don't think playing for $1.5 million is a mistake. It can really work out, just ask Joe Flacco. I think the bigger mistake is to have an agent who doesn't recognize the difference in negotiating an NFL and MLB contract. They are not the same thing. The price of an NFL quarterback like Wilson could go way up, but also remember that NFL quarterbacks get the most praise and the most criticism based on how a season has gone. Not to mention, the Seahawks are due for a season of very bad luck, bad timing and some injuries. It sounds odd to say that, but in the NFL a team can just bottom out during a season for no good reason. For example, say your star safety is currently injured and isn't himself all year, while the offensive line has a bad season. For better or worse, if the Seahawks go 8-8 then some of that is going to reflect on Wilson. The idea he isn't an elite quarterback is going to be reflected in the offers he will get as a free agent (if he gets that far) should the Seahawks have a bad season which results in Wilson not performing up to his previous standard. It's not like MLB where the Marlins can be crappy, but Giancarlo Stanton's performance shines through. In the NFL, when things are shitty at another place on the roster, sometimes it bleeds into the evaluation of that team's QB.

“During the off-season I took a medication which is on the banned substance list. The medication is not a substance which would enhance my on-field performance in any way, and I genuinely was unaware that it was prohibited, but players are responsible for what is in their bodies. I will certainly exercise far greater caution in the future and will seek advice relating to the permissibility of any and all medications.”

—Denver defensive end Derek Wolfe, suspended four games by the league on Friday

It's the old, "Take responsibility while reminding everyone you aren't going to take full responsibility by pleading ignorance" statement that every athlete who gets busted for PED use, yet doesn't want to admit to PED use, will end up making. I'm pretty sure it's just a template statement that gets sent out now. Wolfe probably didn't even know he made this statement.

The Steelers signed Mike Tomlin to a contract extension through the 2018 season on Friday. Assuming Tomlin coaches the team these next four seasons—nothing in the NFL is certain, but the odds have to be heavily in Tomlin’s favor—that would mean the Steelers would have had three coaches in 50 seasons. Through 2014:

Chuck Noll: 23 years, 366 games.
Bill Cowher: 15 years, 261 games.
Mike Tomlin: 8 years, 137 games.

Over those 46 seasons, the Steelers are 152 games above .500. Pretty good argument for continuity, I’d say.

This is a partial argument for continuity, but a bigger argument for smartly choosing a head coach. It's a chicken-or-the-egg situation, but is the success of the Steelers due to having continuity or due to choosing the best head coach and not knee-jerk firing him after he's proven he is the right coach? Continuity means absolutely nothing if the right head coach wasn't chosen. So I'd say this is an argument for continuity and choosing the right head coach in the first place.

Regardless of the results of the 2015 season, Seattle will play at New England in 2016. Barring a rematch in Super Bowl 50 in Santa Clara in February, it will be the first meeting between the two teams since one of the strangest and most compelling Super Bowls ever. Russell Wilson at Tom Brady, the rematch.

The strangest and most compelling Super Bowl ever! Until next year's Super Bowl or the next Super Bowl that ends in an exciting fashion. Peter is great with showing off his recency bias.

Until a few years ago, this time of year would have been filled with stories of rookie negotiations and potential holdouts. Glad that's gone

— Joe Banner (@JoeBanner13) July 25, 2015

—Joe Banner, former Eagles and Browns executive. That’s what a rookie wage scale will do to the news, thank goodness.

This is the same rookie wage scale that Peter used to compare Russell Wilson and Cam Newton's salaries over the first nine years of their career if Wilson got "Rodgers money," while completing ignoring the obvious difference being that Newton had a head start on salary due to having been the #1 overall pick, while Russell Wilson was a third round pick. It's like saying two runners ran at the same speed in a marathon when one of those runners had a five mile head start.

Ten Things I Think I Think

For #1 on "things Peter thinks he thinks" he notes the NFL hired a new COO. Hey guys, the NFL hired a new COO. Don't pretend you don't care.

3. I think it’s always interesting to see the Green Bay Packers release their financials, which the team has to do because it is a publicly held company. This year, the mind-blower—to me—was the 20.6% increase in national revenue from $187.3 million in 2014 to $226 million in 2015. Think of that. National revenue is not only broadcast revenue, but all money brought in on national contracts. Also interesting: The Packers have spent $53.7 million to buy up 64 acres of land around Lambeau Field. That place is already a football fan’s paradise. Imagine if the club decides to build a football-themed amusement park or some such extension of Packerdom.

Or, and Peter King will try to control his emotions the best he can just thinking about this, an entire museum set up to honor Brett Favre. It could have a rollercoaster called "The Gunslinger," a gallery of games where you have to play games normally played by adults but have to play them like you are a kid, and a ride where it starts and stops several times along the track and everyone has to continuously get on and off the ride to commemorate Favre's inability to decide if he wants to retire or not. Visiting an entire theme park dedicated to Favre is probably one of Peter's life goals.

4. I think I really enjoyed Seattle wide receiver Ricardo Lockette’s piece for The Players Tribune on how the last pass of the Super Bowl has haunted him this off-season. It was Lockette, running the quick post at the Patriots’ one-yard line, who thought he was going to catch the winning touchdown pass, only to see New England rookie Malcolm Butler jump in front of him to steal it...It has hurt Lockette the entire off-season—and he said in the piece he appreciated Wilson saying to him on the team’s off-season training trip to Hawaii that he’s coming back to Lockette in a similar situation this year.

At least try to run it once this year in a similar situation and then go back to Lockette. Of course, Darrell Bevell has to call a passing play in a similar situation this year for Wilson to come back to Lockette, and I'm not sure he would have the guts to do that...at least in a big game like the Super Bowl.

5. I think it’s amazing that Peyton Manning has never been to the Pro Football Hall of Fame.

These are the things that amaze Peter King.

He’ll go now, to see his former Colts GM, Bill Polian, inducted on Aug. 8. That’s a good thing. But I’ve not met a player with more reverence for pro football history than Manning, and this is his first visit? Surprising.

Yes, this is incredibly shocking and also very, very not that exciting. The Pro Football Hall of Fame isn't going anywhere and maybe Manning wants to stay away from it for as long as possible in order to make it more special once he is inducted.

6. I think if I’m Saints owner Tom Benson, I’m asking GM Mickey Loomis—if I haven’t asked him already—about the incredible Junior Galette contract that’s going to bite the franchise hard the next two years. Loomis has done a very good job overall over the past decade in resuscitating a moribund team and stocking it with Super Bowl talent.

He has done a good job stocking the team with talent, but he's also given out some bad contracts and had to trade his best offensive skill position player due to the salary cap difficulties the team is having. There is more to being a good GM than putting a good team together on the field, namely rewarding the players on this team and compensating them in order to put the team in a good financial position in the long and short-term. Loomis has put the talent together, but he's made a mess of the cap for the Saints over the past couple of years. I know they wanted to "go for it" while they still had Brees and there was always the hope Galette would start to mature in proportion to his talent.

I wonder if Peter believes the Saints should just keep Loomis around for the next decade, no matter how well he does in his job as GM, simply because continuity is so important? The Steelers wouldn't just fire Mickey Loomis, so obviously the continuity of keeping Loomis as the Saints' GM, no matter the results over the next few years, is what will lead the Saints to the most success.

I’m suggesting they should have been smarter in the first place before giving a risky (but very talented) player so much guaranteed money.

Hindsight is 20/20. I couldn't find any evidence Peter said this prior to Galette being released and getting in trouble. I guess Peter can't comment on every contract extension an NFL player signs, but it's easy to say after the fact the Saints should have been smarter.

7. I think for those who wonder why in the world the Rams—with a civic community willing to do far more right now to build a new stadium for the team in St. Louis than either San Diego or Oakland is willing to do for their teams—are the favorites to move to Los Angeles, the answer really is quite simple. The owner wants to relocate his team to L.A.

I feel bad for Rams fans. They are a group of fans who have supported their team and are going to lose that team to a city that seems to be rather lukewarm on actually having an NFL franchise.

9. I think Josh Freeman—cut by the Dolphins on Friday, probably ending any shot of a further NFL career—will look back on his career one day and say, “I should have worked harder.”

He were go again. Peter is still bitter that Freeman contributed to his (Peter's) friend, Greg Schiano, not succeeding in the NFL. So whenever Peter gets the opportunity, he inexplicably takes his frustration out on Josh Freeman, as if Freeman is the laziest, most over-paid player in the history of the NFL.

Especially in Tampa Bay.

Keep protecting your friend, Peter. Who cares if anyone sees through it?

But when you sign with the Vikings in 2013, and it lasts one game; and when you sign with the Giants in 2014, and it lasts five off-season weeks; and you sign with the Dolphins in 2015, and it lasts 10 off-season weeks, and you’re cut on the eve of training camp, at age 27, with Matt Moore the backup who has beaten you out … the message is pretty clear.

That message being that Matt Moore is a quality backup quarterback who has played in the Dolphins' offensive system for a few years? Josh Freeman isn't very good, there's no doubt about that, but I can't figure out why Peter treats him differently from other quarterbacks who have failed after having initial success. Where's the disgust for Matt Schaub, who was traded for a 6th round pick to the Raiders, then got beaten out by Derek Carr while being paid $8 million, then got released by the Raiders, and signed with the Ravens for $2 million? He took more money from the Raiders than Freeman took from any of these three teams that Peter lists, the Texans would rather have Fitzpatrick than Schaub, then he couldn't beat a rookie for the starting job and now he's a backup. Where is the disgust for Schaub? That's right, Schaub didn't help to get Greg Schiano fired.

Freeman was talented enough. But beginning with the Greg Schiano Bucs, he just didn’t dedicate himself to football the way a starting quarterback should.

It all comes back to the Buccaneers and Greg Schiano. It's embarrassing how Peter seemingly has this bizarre vendetta against Josh Freeman. Any chance he gets, he mentions what a pathetic loser Freeman is, while letting other quarterbacks off the hook when they change teams and underperform.

Better work this screed back though, Peter.

Josh Freeman has been resigned by the Dolphins.

— mike freeman (@mikefreemanNFL) July 28, 2015

10. I think these are my non-football thoughts of the week:

a. Story of the week: It’s on Chip Kelly, by Kent Babb of the Washington Post. I had no idea—and I don’t assume many people in the NFL did—that Kelly was married for seven years in the ’90s.

You also shouldn't assume that many people outside of Eagles fans give a flying fuck. 

c. My gosh. I saw Alex Rodriguez hit three home runs, two of them monster shots (one measured at 452 feet that I swear was a 500-footer), at Target Field Saturday night. I am no A-Rod fan, but come now. He’s got to be getting tested regularly now, so this isn’t cheating. Is it? Is there any way it possibly could be? You know me, and you know what I think of A-Rod, but for a guy a few days shy of 40 to hit three homers totaling 1,300-plus feet, and a guy certain to be getting tested out the wazoo … I mean, you’ve got to give the guy his due.

It's almost like he's a good baseball player or something.

d. It has to be very hard for baseball Hall of Fame voters. I have no idea how I would vote on the ’roid guys. But after watching that display Saturday night, I might be inclined to vote for Rodriguez. Might.

Apparently viewing three home runs in person is enough to push Peter King over the edge to vote for a player who used PED's. Normally, he wouldn't vote for A-Rod, but he saw those home runs IN PERSON! So that's the tipping point. Maybe A-Rod should invite all the baseball Hall of Fame voters to a game and then convert them over to voting for him by hitting a home run.

i. Beernerdness: Farm Girl Saison, Lift Bridge Brewery (Stillwater, Minn.). The Saison has become my second-favorite beer, next to the white beers (Allagash White, Avery White Rascal, i.e.),

I wouldn't doubt that Saison and white beers would be Peter King's two favorite types of beer. It makes so much sense.

l. Todd Frazier hit his 100th career homer Saturday night. Could have sworn it was 200, at least.

I'm not entirely sure what this means. Peter hasn't really mentioned Todd Frazier before. Okay, so he is wrong about how many homers Frazier has hit? It's a weird comment in my opinion.

m. How can it be July 27, and Yasiel Puig has six home runs?

I don't know, Peter. I just don't know.

o. One more bit of praise: ESPN.com’s Mike Sando did a terrific job for the second year in a row, polling 35 NFL coaches and front-office people anonymously and asking them to rank the starting quarterbacks in the league. I thought the rankings were fair and apt: Joe Flacco 10 and Matt Ryan 11 felt right; Alex Smith 16 is another one that seemed very good, because so many evaluators trash him; and the tremendous variation of opinion on Russell Wilson (who was eighth) captured sentiment around the league about him.

But it's not out of the realm of imagination that Wilson gets "Aaron Rodgers" money though, right? Because everyone should share the same evaluation of Wilson that Peter has of him. Again, these are the type of questions which are causing the Seahawks to not just hand Wilson "Rodgers money" and I'm not even sure Wilson doesn't want more than "Rodgers money" at this point.

The Adieu Haiku

We wait. Deflated.
Twenty-seven goshdarn weeks.
Tom Brady twisteth.

Yet last week, Peter was advocating for Roger Goodell to take away Brady's punishment, do more research and then decide on the Patriots'/Brady's punishment after the 2015 season. So Peter thinks the resolution to this controversy has taken too long, but he wants it to take even longer? How does that make sense?

0 comments Bill Madden Again Goes to Bat for Pete Rose

Bill Madden continuously goes to bat for Pete Rose to be in the Hall of Fame. It's his pet project and no matter what Pete Rose does, Madden will want Rose in the Hall of Fame. I'm starting to wonder if Pete Rose murdered someone if that would only strengthen Madden's insistence that Rose deserves to be in the Hall of Fame. He would say that Rose murdering someone with a baseball bat only showed his talent on the field, which is why he should be in the Hall of Fame. So Madden writes about Rose here, here, and here. Simply because a player is an asshole does not mean he shouldn't be in the Hall of Fame, but if it did, then Rose would be doubly-banned from every being in the Hall of Fame. Rose initially denied betting on baseball, then accepted his lifetime ban on baseball while denying he ever bet on the sport, then decided because he had some books to sell that he should admit to betting on baseball and therefore did, but all the while insisting that he NEVER bet on the Reds. Not at all shockingly, this turned out to be a lie too. Perhaps Rose was waiting for his next book to reveal he bet on the Reds. Gotta turn that profit.

So not only is Rose a consistent liar, but he's also still a huge asshole. He's still being a dick about running over Ray Fosse in the All-Star Game. He doesn't have to apologize profusely, but he could be less standoffish and defiant about running over Fosse. I don't blame Rose entirely though. He's had enablers over the year like the rest of his Big Red Machine teammates and sportswriters like Bill Madden, who at this point is so entrenched in the "Pete Rose should be in the Hall of Fame" camp that there is no way he can change his mind now, no matter what Rose does. So he's unfazed by Rose being found out (again) for being liar.

The latest revelations about Pete Rose’s gambling past —

Pete Rose was probably pissed he couldn't make money selling a book containing the revelation he bet on baseball. No worries, I'm sure there are many other things that Rose has lied about which could sell copies of his next book.

which came about with the sudden and curious reappearance of the 1989 betting ledger kept by his former memorabilia agent, Mike Bertolini 

When one of Bill Madden's buddies gets hit with 26 year old evidence it is "sudden and curious," but when a suspected PED user has someone he knew 5-10 years ago provide evidence that PED user did use PED's then it's just that person's moral duty to report what they know. What about this evidence is "sudden and curious"? It's old evidence, but does Bill Madden think there is some broad conspiracy to convince the world that Pete Rose bet on the Reds by providing actual evidence he bet on the Reds? 

if nothing else have ensured that the game’s all-time hit king can never come off baseball’s permanent ineligible list.

I'm not sure that was happening either way. 

That Rose, according to the page copies of the ledger obtained by ESPN, bet on baseball as a player for the Cincinnati Reds, and not just as a manager, merely adds one more layer of lies and denials on his part.

At this point, the layers of lies and denials are so deep there's really no recovering from it. The assumption at this point should be that whatever Pete Rose denies doing, this probably means he is lying and actually did do this thing. 

But because the penalty for betting on baseball — permanent ineligibility — has been clearly stated since 1920, it was hard to imagine new commissioner Rob Manfred lifting Rose’s ban anyway when he meets with him in the next few weeks.

Plus, it does cut into Rose's book sales. His revenue from appearance fees and commercials probably won't take a hit though and that's probably more important to him than anything else. 

All this does is further sully Rose’s image, just as a groundswell of support for him to be reinstated after 26 years of banishment appeared to be forming in the wake of all the steroid cheats coming onto the Hall of Fame ballot.

"A groundswell of support" being defined as, "Rose's sportswriter friends are writing about how he should be eligible for the Hall of Fame in an effort to make it seem like this is something a much larger group of people want as well." Nothing like setting the agenda for a topic to be discussed based on your own personal opinion and then commenting that your opinion reflects that of the majority.

Maybe there is a groundswell of support or maybe the fact Rob Manfred is going to be meeting with Pete Rose soon reminds sportswriters that they want Pete Rose to be in the Hall of Fame, which means they write articles about this topic, which means Bill Madden thinks there is a larger groundswell of support than there may actually be.

Even after finally coming clean about his betting on baseball, Rose continued to insist he never bet as a player — despite the assertions to the contrary in the Dowd Report — and now even his most ardent supporters are hard-pressed to have any sympathy for him.

Except for Bill Madden! He's still holding water for Pete Rose and this is a hill he is willing to die on. 

All of this, however, changes nothing in regard to the long-standing baseball conundrum: Does Rose belong — or should he at least be eligible — for the Hall of Fame?

Again, I don't necessarily think Pete Rose should be eligible for the Hall of Fame because he was permanently banned from baseball. That's my reasoning. If Rose gets in, I'm not going to throw a fit, but I think his permanent banishment should preclude him from making the Hall of Fame. This, of course, is where obsessive Rose supporters like Bill Madden will start talking about PED's and attempting to show an equivalence that I'm not sure truly exists. Move the ball, change the subject, then maybe you can convince some people that using PED's equates to betting on baseball and betting on your own team while playing for and managing that team. 

The reason this is a conundrum is because Rose is much like Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens and Alex Rodriguez in many ways. Everything they have said and done off the field — the lies, denials, lies on top of the lies, etc. — renders them illegitimate. 

And here we go...

The difference, in contrast to the others, is that everything Rose did on the field was legitimate.

Absolutely, Pete Rose's performance on the field was totally legit. He didn't take PED's and only took greenies. Wait, Pete Rose took amphetamines that are currently banned by MLB? But don't worry, it was only for "reasons to lose weight." So it's totally fine and doesn't count at all as enhancing his perfomance on the field. This is much like PED users who may use these PED's but only "to come back from injury," which is totally not acceptable. There is a huge difference there. The biggest difference being Pete Rose played back in the 70's and sportswriters don't want to think about those guys as having used any substance to enhance their performance so they will just ignore any information about greenie use from Pete Rose.

Sportswriters like Bill Madden love to cloud the issue of Rose's lifetime ban by talking about the PED use of current players. It's the "How come I'm in jail for robbing a bank when this guy murdered someone and isn't currently in jail?" line of reasoning. Rather than face the fact Rose accepted a ban head-on and has continuously lied since that time, they would rather say, "HEY! These guys cheated and nothing is being done to them" as a way of ignoring the issue of Rose's acceptance of a lifetime ban.

No more respected sports voice than Bob Costas, when posed that question by ESPN’s Hannah Storm last Monday, said affirmatively that the Hall of Fame should still be a separate issue from Rose’s permanent ineligibility and that, in his opinion, Rose should be in the Hall of Fame.

Mind you, Costas is someone many people in the past even promoted for commissioner.

Who cares? These unnamed "people" think a lot of things and that doesn't mean because a group of people think Bob Costas should be commissioner that Costas' opinion should be treated as if it has more importance than it otherwise would.

Interestingly, in an interview Costas had with Manfred a few weeks ago, he specifically asked the new commissioner whether baseball, through its own investigations, knows anything about Rose’s recent or current behavior or associations that would change fans’ minds if they knew about it. Manfred responded: “I can tell you, there is no recent investigation or material involving Pete Rose.”

That is interesting, because Bill Madden would think that Manfred would reveal any evidence that MLB had heard which claimed Rose did bet on his own team. It makes sense for Manfred to reveal this in an interview with Bob Costas as opposed to having it revealed a few weeks later.

Honestly, I have no idea why this is interesting.

Perhaps this whole issue of Rose and gambling on baseball would be much more clear-cut if baseball itself wasn’t in partnership with DraftKings, the online daily fantasy sports website in which millions of dollars are won and lost by fans essentially betting on the performance of professional athletes.

Uh-oh, we are talking about Pete Rose and his associations and current behavior. Better change the subject again!

Except there is a huge difference in baseball players betting on games they manage or play in and fans betting on the performance of athletes. For example, it's not against MLB rules for fans to bet on a player's performance, but it is against the rules for an active manager or player to bet on baseball or his own team. In fact, yep, that's pretty much the only difference required to explain why MLB has a partnership with DraftKings and Pete Rose is banned for life. The issue of Rose and gambling on baseball IS clear-cut. Fans can bet on players because they don't control the outcome of games, while players and managers can't bet on the outcome of games because they are able to control the outcome of said games. This seems like a very basic principle to me.

MLB maintains that fantasy baseball isn’t gambling per se as it falls under the regulatory category of “games of skill” — and that it was beneficial (not to mention highly profitable) for baseball to be involved with an industry that promotes daily interest in the game among younger fans.

Which is possibly true. I find that I am more in-tune with what is going on with each baseball team, as well as enjoy the sport more, because I play fantasy baseball. 

It should be noted that neither the players themselves nor anyone working in Major League Baseball is permitted to engage in DraftKings’ baseball fantasy operation.

Awwww, it's almost like Bill Madden understands the difference in players betting on DraftKings and fans betting on DraftKings, but he just doesn't want to acknowledge there is a fairly clear-cut difference and question what the hell this has to do with Pete Rose. By the way, Pete Rose accepted the lifetime ban and has continuously lied about betting on baseball, as well as betting on his own team while managing that team. I don't think lying necessarily keeps a person out of the Hall of Fame, but when Rose isn't eligible for the Hall of Fame because he bet on baseball and he keeps lying about the extent to which he bet on baseball, it doesn't exactly help me to feel sorry for his plight. 

“In terms of growing the game among young people, baseball’s association with DraftKings makes sense,” said one sports executive. “But at the same, you’re talking about people betting on players every day and, in that respect, baseball’s stance against gambling, if not hypocritical, at the very least becomes blurred.”

I don't think I see this line being blurred. I think it's pretty clear. MLB likes betting when it helps draw new fans to the game and help old fans enjoy the game even more. MLB doesn't like betting when it becomes an issue of the integrity of the games being played to where the outcome of the game could be in question because a manager or player is trying to earn money on a bet they made. Maybe baseball is hypocritical, but this is a pretty clear line in my opinion. Gambling by fans is fun, gambling by those paid to play baseball could put the integrity of the sport into question.

Put Pete Rose on the Hall of Fame ballot. Fine. Just know that trying to make it seems like Rose is getting a raw deal because MLB is affiliated with DraftKings or complaining players who have used PED's are still eligible for the Hall of Fame is avoiding the issue of why Rose can't be on the Hall of Fame ballot.

6 comments Murray Chass Is Still Bitching about Integrity and This Year It's the Cubs Who Lack Integrity

What timing that I wrote this post today! Kris Bryant got called up!

Every year Murray Chass accuses MLB teams of lacking integrity for finding reasons to hold players down in the minors in order to not start their service time and get an extra year out of that player before he hits free agency. Murray bitches about it here, here, here, and here. As I've always stated, this isn't an integrity issue to me. This is an issue of a MLB team playing within the rules and getting an extra year out of a player while giving up a month or a few weeks of that player being on the current roster. I bet the Braves wish they had waited another couple months to call Jason Heyward up. Maybe they wouldn't have had to trade him this offseason and could have had more time to work out a long-term deal. Anyway, Murray writes on his non-blog that the Cubs lack integrity for keeping Kris Bryant down in the minors to avoid him becoming a Super Two and this time he has Scott Boras on his side.

It's all about the integrity to Murray. I wonder if he considers accusing a player of using PED's based on bacne as violating his strict integrity guidelines. Probably not.

Theo Epstein, the man who runs the Chicago Cubs’ baseball operations, said this:

In this business of trying to win a world championship for the first time in 107 years, the organization has priority over any one individual.

He also said this:

We have clung to two important ideals during our three years in Chicago. The first is to always be loyal to our mission of building the Cubs into a championship organization that can sustain success. The second is to be transparent with our fans….To our fans: we hope you understand, and we appreciate your continued support of the Cubs.

Epstein should have added, "Unless, you know, if being transparent means that the union can file a grievance on behalf of a player and telling a little white lie will benefit the organization in the long run."

Epstein included both of these comments in a statement he issued when the Cubs fired their manager, Rick Renteria, last October and hired Joe Maddon. If they sound familiar, it’s because I quoted them in last week’s column. I quote them again for this column about a Cubs’ player. Kris Bryant.

Keeping Kris Bryant in the minors fulfills the intent of the first quote and fufills the intent in the first part of the second quote. Two out of three isn't bad. Epstein can't say, "It's in the best interests of the organization long-term to keep Kris Bryant in the minors," even though it's true, because people get their panties in a wad that the Cubs would dare to work within the rules to build a quality team over the long-term.

The last I looked Bryant had hit nine home runs, more than any other player in this spring’s exhibition games. I have long said it doesn’t pay to pay attention to spring statistics, but Bryant has forced the Cubs to pay attention.

Murray has always believed it makes no sense to pay attention to spring statistics, unless those spring statistics go to prove a point that Murray wants to prove. In that case, forget everything else that Murray has ever said and those spring training statistics are vitally important and serve as definitive evidence for what Murray wants to prove. Spring training statistics are of course useless when they serve the need Murray Chass has that point in time.

He has convinced them he is ready to help the Cubs win – a playoff spot, the National League Central title, the N.L. pennant, the World Series. Whatever it is, they’ll take it, though they prefer the World Series, which the Cubs haven’t won since 1908.

And since when have the expectations of fans ever been unrealistic?

Bryant, however, can’t help the Cubs win anything if he’s not on the team, and when last heard on the subject, the Cubs said they plan to have Bryant start the season in the minor leagues. They’re playing a game I have chronicled here for the past several years. It’s the major league service time manipulation game. It’s legal under the labor practice, but it undermines the integrity of the game.

Allowing MLB teams to do something that is legal under the labor practice which helps the team in the long run undermines the integrity of the game? I've never understood this point of view. Maybe it's a bit of a dick move by the Cubs (or Giants or any other MLB team), but it doesn't undermine the integrity of the game because it's not against the rules. It is manipulating service time, which (checks the CBA) isn't against the rules.

If steroids and Pete Rose’s violation of the game’s gambling rule undermines baseball’s integrity, so does the clubs’ manipulation of service time, no matter what an arbitrator said 30 years ago.

Yeah, this is not at all a good parallel. There are rules on the books against gambling and using PED's to gain an advantage. There is no rule that says an MLB team HAS to put their best team on the field, as determined by an old sportswriter-turned-blogger. I recognize there is no help for Murray Chass anyway, but if he can't tell the difference in a player violating a rule that is written in the MLB rule book and a team not violating part of the CBA then there is definitely never going to be help for him.

Boras is Bryant’s agent and could be said to have a vested interest in how the Cubs treat Bryant.

Right, because the more money Kris Bryant makes means that Scott Boras makes more money. Does it undermine the integrity of the game when an agent publicly requests an MLB team makes a personnel move all so that agent can have more money put in his pocket? I guess not. Scott Boras wants more money in his pocket, so he accuses others of wrongdoing so he can get richer.

He and I seldom agree on issues involving his clients, but in this instance I believe he is 100 percent correct.

Just like spring training statistics don't mean anything until Murray needs them to mean something to prove his point, Scott Boras is an evil person until Boras agrees with Murray Chass on an issue. In that case, Boras is just speaking the truth.

The Cubs and the other clubs that behave similarly are hurting Major League Baseball. They are saving money, but they are cheating their fans.

Murray's whole "They are hurting the fans" argument fails every single time. It doesn't hurt Cubs fans that they now get to have Kris Bryant as a part of the Cubs franchise for a longer period of time. The Cubs are not expected to win the World Series this year, so why is it hurting the team to make sure they keep Bryant around for an extra year when they may be able to better compete to win the World Series in the future? The fans aren't being cheated. The player and Scott Boras' pockets are being cheated, which apparently undermines the integrity of the game.

If they are not using their best players, they are not trying to win. That failing goes to the core of integrity.

The Cubs will be using their best players, and using their best players for a longer period of time, if they ensure that Kris Bryant doesn't become a Super Two by holding him down in the minors longer.

If the Cubs open the season with Bryant in the minors and keep him there for at least 12 days, they can ensure his presence with them through the 2021 season instead of the 2020 season, the first seven years of his major league career instead of the first six.

Wow, the Cubs fans are getting screwed. They are trading 12 days of not having Kris Bryant on the roster for an entire year of having Kris Bryant on the roster. I'm surprised there haven't been riots and revolts while fans storm the gates of Wrigley Field. Cubs fans are trading 12 days for 5 more months of Kris Bryant. That sounds pretty good.

For purposes of service time, a season is 172 days so a player can lack 11 days and still receive credit for a full season. If, however, he lacks 12 days and is in the majors the rest of the season, he has 171 days of major league service, one day short of a full year.

So Murray's argument is that because the Cubs are holding down Kris Bryant down in the minors for at least 6.98% of the season, and thereby receiving 100% of another season of Bryant's services, then they are getting screwed? This is a real argument he is furthering? Scott Boras and Kris Bryant may be getting screwed, but it doesn't affect the integrity of the game that Boras is arguing for what is financially beneficial for himself. Of course not.

As a result of clubs’ closely monitoring service time, they have kept major league-ready players in the minors longer than they should,

Which is an opinion and not a fact. These bloggers are always stating opinions as facts.

calling them up usually in late May or early June. The accompanying chart tells a striking story.

Since Murray is all about "the fans" and how they are getting screwed, let's look at all these players and see how many of them are still with their original team that called them up. You know, just for shits and giggles to see how screwed these fans are getting.

This list has 25 players on it. Of these 25 players, only 5 of these players are not on their original team. Oscar Taveras is dead, so he doesn't really count. Kris Medlen was released by the Braves mostly for injury reasons and not performance reasons. Jordan Lyles, Joe Kelly and Stephen Pryor were respectively traded for Dexter Fowler, John Lackey, and Kendry Morales in an effort for the team that called them up to improve their team. So of these 25 players, 20 of them are still with the team that called them up, while four of them are not with their current team, but the reason they aren't with the team didn't "screw over the fans."

So Murray has no point. He argues these late call-ups screw over fans, but I don't think this is true. These late call-ups have allowed teams to have control over these players for a longer period of time.

In Bryant’s case, the Cubs care more about free agency because they could never keep him in the minors until late May or early June.

It's unfathomable that the Cubs would want to keep Bryant on their roster for as long as possible. The fans must feel screwed over knowing they get to keep one of the team's best prospects for a longer period of time. 

I had a lot of questions to ask Epstein, but a week’s worth of telephone calls and e-mail did not induce him to respond so the questions remain unasked and unanswered. Oh yes. I also tried reaching Tom Ricketts, the team’s owner, and he didn’t respond. Even the Cubs’ media relations director didn’t call back. I guess they are intent on not answering questions about Bryant.

Or, you know, they don't have to answer questions about Kris Bryant if they care not to or don't want to be accused of lacking integrity by a sportswriter-turned-blogger. 

Epstein, however, did speak with reporters at the Cubs’ camp in Arizona and talked in television interviews, and I frankly find it difficult to believe what he said about why Bryant may start the season in the minors:

Why does Murray find it difficult to believe? Because he wants to find it difficult to believe. It's the same reason that Murray doesn't think spring training statistics mean much, until he needs them to mean a lot in order to prove a point.

“It’s not about business. People are trying to make this about business. There are valid baseball reasons. The process of developing a player, taking them from amateur to Major League player and every step along the way, that’s a baseball process and those are baseball decisions, and that’s what we’re doing here.”

Here are several points I have:

1. It doesn't matter if Murray Chass finds this statement difficult to believe or not. MLB teams are entitled to leave whatever players they choose to leave at whatever minor league level they choose to leave that player until they decide they want to promote him.

2. If Theo Epstein said, "Yeah, we are holding him back so his service time doesn't cause him to become a Super Two" then that could be more honest but it would also cause Bryant to file a grievance. The Cubs don't even have to explain themselves anyway. So explaining themselves is pointless and unnecessary.

3. Bryant had been playing left field occasionally in spring training, so it's possible the Cubs decided they wanted him to practice more in left field (not in game situations) while in the minors.

4. The Cubs and Theo Epstein don't have to explain why they sent Bryant down because it's not against the rules for them to run the organization as they see fit.

Epstein pointed out that he had never had a player make his major league debut at the start of a season:

Murray thinks Theo Epstein REALLY lacks integrity now.

“I’ve never put a guy on an opening-day roster who hadn’t played in the big leagues previously. In 13 years, I’ve never done it. I’m not saying I’d never do it, but the general rule, the presumption, is to allow those guys to go out, play, get comfortable, get in rhythm, and come up when you handpick just the right moment for them to have success.”

It makes sense from the perspective of a GM. It does.

Unfortunately, neither that interviewer nor any other asked Epstein why, then, didn’t he call up Bryant late last season, as he did with infielder Mike Olt and outfielder Jorge Soler.

Possibly because the Cubs weren't in competition for a playoff spot and it didn't make sense to call up every single prospect the Cubs had. Perhaps because Olt plays third base too and it doesn't make any fucking sense to call up two prospects from the minors who play the exact same position so that one of those prospects ends up sitting the bench on a given day.

“They had Baez and Soler at Triple A,” Boras said. “Bryant performed far better. They get called up to the big leagues and Bryant doesn’t.”

And never forget while reading about Scott Boras whining that he has a financial stake in when Kris Bryant gets called up. Scott Boras gets paid faster when Kris Bryant is one year closer to free agency.

Had they promoted Bryant with the others, he could open this season with the Cubs without violating Epstein’s stated practice. But they weren’t about to recall Bryant then because his service clock would have started ticking, in Epstein’s view like a time bomb.

Mike Olt is older than Bryant and wasn't exactly hitting terrible at AAA last year when he was called up. But no, Murray is right that public opinion on which prospect should be called up to the majors, and not the opinion of the organization, should be what determines when Kris Bryant gets called up to the majors. The Cubs organization has no right to make personnel moves as they see fit.

Is that bad for the fans? A reader responded to a previous column about the manipulation of service time by saying he would rather have the player for a whole extra season than for a few extra games now.

But there are fans who have lived and died with the Cubs for their entire lives without seeing them win a World Series and may not have seven years left in their lives to see if it happens in 2021.

So the people who will die after the 2020 season who never got a chance to see the Cubs win the World Series are the ones getting screwed. So it's not Cubs fans that are getting screwed, but a specific subset of fans who don't currently know they are getting screwed who are getting screwed. These fans may be dead before 2021, so obviously Theo Epstein needs to factor in how many Cubs fans will be dead between the end of the 2020 season and the beginning of the 2021 season when making any decisions on which prospects to call up to the majors.

That makes sense.

“Is this good for the game?” Boras asked. “Fans are aware these players are extraordinary. They have nothing left to prove in the minors. Every year Kris Bryant has separated himself from everyone else. What standards does he have to achieve to deserve promotion?”

I'm sorry, I can't get past the fact Scott Boras is trying to preach about the integrity of the game when he wants Kris Bryant called up because it benefits them both financially.

Bryant is not expected to match his spring production in the early weeks of the season, even if he opens it with Chicago. Players who are torrid in spring exhibition games seldom take their paces into the season.

Well, it seems spring training statistics don't mean anything to Murray again.

Earlier this month the agent created a spring stir when he talked with Bob Nightengale of USA Today. Nightengale is one of the best baseball writers in the country, maybe the best, but even he swallowed Epstein’s excuse for delaying Bryant’s arrival in the majors.

“The Cubs simply believe that Bryant needs more defensive seasoning at Class AAA Iowa,” Nightengale wrote.

Bob Nightengale wasn't swallowing the excuse, he was repeating the reason given by Theo Epstein for Bryant to start the season at AAA.

Epstein was merely repeating the words of many other general managers who have used that excuse. The Pittsburgh Pirates have practically copyrighted that comment the last few years.

Oh, over the last few years the Pirates have copyrighted that excuse? Is this the same last few years when the Pirates have made the playoffs twice when they had not made the playoffs the 20 years prior to that? I bet Pirates fans feel REALLY screwed by the organization choosing to keep the best prospects in the minors in order to keep these prospects on the team longer. I'm surprised Pirates fans haven't revolted yet. The organization is making moves that results in the team making the playoffs and keeping the team's best players longer? It's outrageous!

Addressing the issue a few years ago, Rob Manfred said, “It has been long established that clubs have a right to call up players when they decide the timing is best for the club.”

However, that case was not on point with call-ups as they have developed, and a grievance probably is in order.

Clark, the Executive Director of the union, commented, “I think it’s disappointing that we are having any conversation that there is a question about the best players not to be available for fans to watch. It takes away from the game.”

I don't really care if the rule gets changed, but these are the rules now. The best players are not available for a smaller portion of a season so they can be available to that team for a longer period of time over that player's career with the team. The fans are not getting screwed over for their patience.

Bryant is not the only players whose immediate major league status is in question. Pitchers Jon Gray of Colorado and Carlos Rodon of the Chicago White Sox also have not been assured of spots on major league rosters.

Unfathomable. Rodon made six starts in the minor leagues after he was drafted. How could he NOT be ready for the majors?

If all three players fail to win opening-day jobs in the majors, their absence will very likely encourage the union to seek a solution with a grievance.

Murray means they would file a grievance for players that aren't really a part of the MLBPA? Seeking to file a grievance for players the MLB players have intentionally left out as being represented by their union? I'm sure Murray sees that as a case of having great integrity. Scott Boras just wants more money for Kris Bryant sooner (which is his right as an agent), whether it be with the Cubs or another team, so it's funny how he preaches integrity and pretends the fans are getting screwed. The Cubs organization is preventing Boras from ripping Kris Bryant away from the Cubs team one year earlier than they otherwise could and the fans are supposed to be getting the raw end of the deal?